The future of Irish universities

simu

How will it be?

Will we see greater partnership between universities and business/industry as Irish universities struggle to stay secure financially? If so, will this have negative effects on academic freedom?

Will commerce and science faculties take centre-stage, marginalising humanities departments?

Will universities still be seen as places where people learn to think and share ideas or will their main role be as supplier of competent workers?

Any other thoughts on the topic?

Sleepy

I think that for the large part, that change has already occured. Universities ARE now degree factories providing "competent" workers. From my experience, the majority of the learning experiences in university occur outside the arena of academia and are more of a "personal growth" nature. The IT's tend to be more honest about what they teach and as a result probably provide better training for the workplace than universities.

It's a shame that we're losing the "scholars" part of the 'Island of Saints and Scholars' just as fast as we're purging it of the religeous nonsense that contributed to the ignorance of this nation. Education for it's own sake, or the idea of university as a place to question, think and learn as opposed to the modern Leaving Cert "Cram and Spew" approach taken, is on life-support if it's even clinically alive at all.

klong

simu wrote:

Will commerce and science faculties take centre-stage, marginalising humanities departments?

I think this will happen as universities question the point of humanities departments when, arguably, commerce and science will bring greater prestige and more government grants than humanities. UL seem to be an exception to this, for some reason they have expanded their humanities department recently- which is why Im in UL now! But on the whole, I think humanities will slowly disappear from universities.

deRanged

simu wrote:

Will commerce and science faculties take centre-stage, marginalising humanities departments?

That's already happened - SFI (Science Foundation Ireland) only supports two areas of research, ICT and BIO something or other. They rationalise it as only having limited funds, and deciding to get more out of less areas, rather than supporting many and getting less return.
I was at a meeting where the director of SFI was speaking to a room full of academics (biggest crowd I've ever seen in Boole IV) and basically most of them were asking why he was not going to fund them *at all*.
Luckily my area of research(Comp Sci) is well funded atm, I wouldn't fancy being outside the chosen two. There's every chance that something will become a hotter topic though.

Then there's the business school approach - ala UCD. They've got a respected business school but they're getting some bad press over not doing enough research and publishing enough. There's moves afoot to set one up in UCC too, which worries me somewhat.

gom

Currently I have a very very strong self-interest in the outcome of the changes that are occuring in Univeristies through out the land of Ireland. I'm in 2nd yr in a 4 yr joint-degree in Trinity college. Currently the "Stratgic Plan" is in the restructuring Phase. Basically this means that the departments and faculties are getting reorganised. The Irish Times has a go at writing an article on what is going on in Trinity ever second week but in my opinion they are totally misinformed and just feel like writing something they know ex-students might enjoy/get passionite about.

Restructuring is basically the creation of Schools(read large Departments), much like the Oxford/Cambridge structure but not nearly as independent. An example of some of the restructuring that is planned(and is likely to happen as it has consenus within the various mentioned departments)

BESS Faculty will split into 2 schools:
-School of Social Science: Philosphy, Sociology, Political Science, Economics and Social Policy
-School of Business: Business (all on its own)

that leaves the other have of 'Social Studies' = Social Work on their own. they will probably merge into a school with Psychology.

Basically the school system will allow smaller departments to merge and pool resources. They will also create a greater amount of identity for Post-Grad research and should have a more student friendly approach for Under-Grads also.
Restructuing will mean that disiplines with research similarities will more than likely come together to allow more choice and resources for research. The economies of sclae will also kick in and more than likely admin staff will be let go.

Other examples of Schools.
All the languages coming together and forming a 'SChool of Languages' unlike the current system where each language has its own department and there is even a Early Irish Deparment and Modern Irish Department, with only 4-6 gradutes a year each.

On the student side of things it is pretty likely that no ugrad courses will get axed. BESS faculty will no longer exist but you can be damn sure that the BESS degree programme will still be operating(it is after all the most popular undergrad Business Degree in the country). BESS will probably have more choice also(read philosphy and maybe ICT subjects).

Most of the hot air surrounding restructuring(only part of the stratgic plan) is the Provosts method of not consulting. THat seems to have changed somewhat. The Student Union is completely at a loss at what to do. I tried to force action on it after it looked like the SU was about to act against the interests of many many students just to maintain the status quo with out realising the benefits of restructuring.

Later there will be additional phases in the stratgic review. The next one up is probably the one that will face the most opposition. Resource Allocation Model (RAM). Basically this is how money is distributed. It looks like the Humanities will gain an increase just below that of inflation(i.e. a real degrease) and the Health Sciences will get 5 times the funding they currently recieve.
Lecturer Dr. Sean Barrett makes a good point in his out right opposition to the stratgic review. He basically says that students demand humanities. No amount of money in research for a subject like Maths with 6-10 students graduating every year will make students change they mind about studying English or Philosphy. Students go to college to get a broad and universal education. Contray to what the college managers and government want to promote, under-resourcing highly-demanded courses with many many students and shifting money into HENS='High Expenditure No Student' courses (Dr. Barrett's words) makes no economic sense whatsoever. I agree completely. Demand and resource needs should dictate the supply of grant money for research. Simply throughing money at ICT/Bio-Tech/Traditional sciences etc is not the way to promote the subject as a choice in University. WHile i would wellcome more involvment of the private sector in research investment in the sciences it can not be relied on for the humanities end of things. The research gained in the humanities is a Public Good once finished. Everyone gains for it. Not just the firm or private investor. Therefore the private sector has no incentive to invest in it, e.g. you can't patient a social explanation or a survey result(u can sell it though). The rate of return on investment is huge in the traditional sciences compared to the humanities. So if I were to invest in research i know where my money would go(genetics/pharmaiticals)

Newman's - The Idea of a University has a great quote in it that I have used on numerous occasions:

"If I had to choose between a so-called University which dispensed with residence and tutorial supervision and gave its degrees to any person who passed an examination in a wide range of subjects, and a University which merely brought a number of young men together for three or four years… I have no hesitation in giving the preference to the later…"

Basically I think that a destinction should be made between ITs and Universities. The tendency of late is a drift toward a university(esp. DIT). I think this is contrey to the idea of the IT in the first place. The IT shouldbe a place where you go to get a degree/diploma/cert in the field you wish to work. they you go out their and work in it. ITs are not universities and should never become univeristies. On the other hand the 7 universities should maintain a sphere of academa uthopia about them. I know that Oxford and Cambridge benefit greatly by boosting their image as a haven for academic escapism. No university should become a degree printing press....What do you gain from that? An expensive and over theorical degree, with a student that has to be retrained by his/her employer anyway..

DadaKopf

The same 'Schools' approach has been suggested for UCD in the WAG Report. The proposal is that the amount of faculties will be reduced from around 11 to six. I've spoken quite a bit to the director of my masters course about this in a general sense, but I'm not up on the detail.

While I think the way the reform proposals are dressed up - i.e. they preach greater resources, better pooling and redistribution, and inter-departmental co-operation - university politics is such that this is unlikely to materialise without a lot of effort.

I'm particularly adamant that Irish universities not become contaminated by economistic thinking, and I detest the use of phrases like 'economies of scale' or calls to 'supply and demand' as pure justifications for decisions about our educational system. Universities are not 'degree factories', they are and should always be 'idea factories'. I think it's simply dangerous that resource allocation is biased towards subjects or disciplines whose outcomes are directly quantifiable - this leaves no space for us to question the value of education in the round. But if you want to go down this road, I'd say that humanities and 'social sciences' are just as important as other disciplines in terms of their contribution to GDP because they incubate ideas and encourage real innovation (in contrast to mindless reproduction). Oft maligned, I really believe the humanities is the invisible force that keeps a society flourishing and it comes close to a crime against mankind to erase these departments and faculties. If anything, they should be over-funded.

Finally, I think it's of the utmost importance to encourage interdisciplinary research as much as possible. For some reasons in Irish universities, these areas of research aren't thought of as 'real subjects'. The whole point of them is to bring the wisdom of all disciplines together to bring about the highest level of knowledge possible. But instead, only a few styled of thinking (often argued to be methodologically limited) dominate, largely due to their instrumental worth and disproportionate resources. It's simply damaging to let this continue.

gom

Hey Dadakopf.

I would have to disagree with you on using Economic principles in the discussions on restructuring. Economics itself is a Humanistic subject.

Demand and Supply can win the arguement for Humanities funding.
Firstly there is a huge demand for Arts/Humanities subjects. They are grossly undersupplied(which is reflected in the points they recieve each year).

People do not want to study IT/Computer Science/ Bio-Tech/Chemistry/Specialist Medical Technecs. The government can't force people to do so. Simply having a work force trained in Programming, Bio engineering and pharmicy will not create a knowledge economy. It will create the type of service economy that existed in the late 80s. Basically we had lots of electronics firms. There manual labour put things together and exported them. The government of the day and the present I might add actually believed that this is a high tech economic activity. Agricultural Products have more of a benefit to the economy than assemly lines in electronics.

Irish Society needs Humanities to lead the world. Managers, Planners, Ideas... they all come from humanities. Scientists are technicians(yes - all you CS nuts you won't change the world. Technological Determinism is not a reality and a pip dream of the 70s and Negroponte)

Dadakopf is completely right in saying that humanities are probably the most important disaplines in western societies.

That said there is much to benefit from the changes in the universities. We must act to ensure that a correct balance comes out from the processes. While looking at the UCD plans I see it seriously disadvantaging the student and academic body in favour of selling research patents as they currently do in DCU. Colleges are places of learning and should never be tied down by the real world. But don't brush economics aside, they are extremely useful in fighting for the corner of humanities.

no matter what the outcome I unfortunitly see the return of fees for under-graduates. This is regretible but as long as those from modest backgrounds do not have to pay it is fine by me. If you have your parents net income at over 50,000 then surely they can afford to pay for you. If not then you shold continue to get access to the Fee Remission Scheme and the Maintance grant should be higher. I find it completely unequal that a millionares son/daughter does not have to pay anything other than 750euros. While someone whos parents have a combined income just over the industrial average will have to pay the 750 anyway... Its a scandal that should be fixed... The government should not be talking about Australian systems or any other system for that matter.

ireland needs a more progressive system of Fee remission. I'm not going to point out any figures but basically any one in the lower tax bracket should still be able to availe of fee remission and anyone on a very very high wage should ahve to pay the full wack.
Ecducational Loans should be set up by the government and administered from colleges on a 0-1% interest rate for those that need to pay fees.

If the government wanted to promote its HENS('High Expenditure, No Student') courses it coudl drop the entry cost and then you might have a higher number going into science than there current is.

DadaKopf

gom wrote:

But don't brush economics aside, they are extremely useful in fighting for the corner of humanities.

I'm not brushing economics aside at all. I'm well aware that there are many sub-disciplines in economics, and it *is* a valid, and often useful 'social science'. My gripe is with the dominant mode of economics which influences policy and tends to lead people to dismiss the worth of other humanities disciplines. Economics is only *one* discipline of many which should work together with all others, if possible.

My central concern is that attempts to fix our third level system based on an economistic analysis of the world blocks us all off from asking questions about the total *value* of a university education in the first place - qualitatively and quantitatively. Supply and demand is a fair justification, but only one justification of many and certainly not the only one.

I disagree with you that science can't offer ideas. It very much depends on the context, and, in my view, the best research comes about through establishing a productive balance between theory and practise, ideas and action. But this thread isn't a philosophical debate, although it could be continued over on the philosophy board .

no matter what the outcome I unfortunitly see the return of fees for under-graduates. This is regretible but as long as those from modest backgrounds do not have to pay it is fine by me.

I agree with your sentiments, but maybe I'm even a little more egalitarian - or simplistic. I look at the Nordic countries and Denmark and notice how their successes owe much to their rigidly egalitarian educational system - not only do all go to university for free (so I'm told), they get paid to go, although they're expected to pay that money back in taxes over their lifetime. According to the OECD (and this is the OECD we're talking about), Finland has the best primary and secondary education system in the world - nearly all schools are state-owned comprehensive schools and are free. Everyone, rich and poor, get the same education and aren't examined until their final year. A Danish school master who advises the EU on education policy said to me that the Scandinavian attitude is to concentrate on building children's faculties and strength of character to think independently before before they're ever put under any pressure to conform to aptitude percentile categories. Compare this with what the average paddy says about how our system beats us down.

I find it ironic that the British approach to education, while trying to promote equality in society, succeeds in some respects to improve social mobility, but does nothing to promote the value of equality throughout British society. I think it's important that we not repeat that mistake.

This said, I haven't any solutions even remotely as developed as yours .

Except for the fact that our entire third level entry system has to be seriously revised. But I understand there's already a HEA review committee on the case.

AngelofFire

The biggest problem that comes with private investment, is the vested interests. If Private companies start taking over faculties or entire universities it is likely that they will design courses to suit their needs. Its likely that Arts, Philosophy, Social Sciences etc would be for the chop therefore it is certainly not in the best interests of education. I was at a talk with UCD president hugh brady on tuesday, and he gave an assurance that any private funding would come with no strings attached, but if a private company is willing to fund a university, then there is obviously some hidden interest there. It is clear that we have a government that doesn`t care about education, Nothing was done in this years budget to drop the reg fees. The 6% increase in the estimates is in effect a 2% cutback according to Dr Hugh Brady. Spending on education in this country is unacceptable given its vast wealth, we spend less on education as percentage of GNP than mexico. We cannot continue to run a policy of low taxation for racehourse owners, and wealthy stockholders to the detriment of our education system.

Moriarty

simu wrote:

Will commerce and science faculties take centre-stage, marginalising humanities departments?

Will universities still be seen as places where people learn to think and share ideas or will their main role be as supplier of competent workers?

Intresting - and rather telling - that you automatically equate science faculties with 'supplying a competent workforce' while humanities is for 'learning to think and share ideas'.

On the larger issue, fees need to return as part of the solution, along with increased exchequer investment. We are all more or less agreed that we need well run and well financed third level institutions if we want Ireland to continue to prosper in the medium to long term, just not on how exactly to finance/reform them.

I'd have no problem paying for my university education through some sort of student loan system if I knew that money was going directly back into the university system so that myself and those that follow get taught to a standard that other countries would want to aspire to.

simu

Moriarty wrote:

Intresting - and rather telling - that you automatically equate science faculties with 'supplying a competent workforce' while humanities is for 'learning to think and share ideas'.

I don't. They were two seperate questions. Science can be taught in different ways - the courses could be focused on the needs of industry paying little attention to seemingly unprofitable subject areas or it could be taught in a broader way where emphasis is on discovery and experimentation for their own sake. You could also have humanities courses that produce worker drones that can spout off impressive sounding but meaningless waffle at company events etc

AngelofFire

I Can see where people are coming from when they say that it would be ok for fees to return for people with rich parents. However, one of the problems with that is, is that it doesn`t take into account the students independence of their parents nor the parents willingness to pay the fees. The best way for the rich to pay for fees is to place higher taxation on high earners, to raise more revenue. Increase 3rd level funding by at least 40% and abolish the reg fees. Scandanavia has an excellent education system funded entirely by the exhcequer why cant we follow their example. A report into the student loan system in australia discoverd that did not improve the quality of 3rd level education, it saddled students with debt and did not increase participation in 3rd level at all. In ireland we already have the highest levels of personal debt per capita in europe. Introducing a student loan scheme will only serve to compound that problem. The argument for re-introducing fees is a populist scapegoat, for the problems with 3rd level funding.

Moriarty

AngelofFire, it's been shown time and again over the past 10 years that the majority want to live in a low direct-tax country. Saying everything would be resolved if we just get the exchequer to pay for it all is a waste of breath, as raising taxes to cover it just isn't going to happen.

AngelofFire

But in the low direct tax country, the education system suffers. Investment in education is investment in the future of this country. Are there any opinion poles that people want a low direct tax system, to the detriment of social cohesion and public good.

Moriarty

I dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me. People in this country expect the benefits of high state expenditure comparable to northern europe without the requirement for high taxes.

Pure state investment in universitys isn't the only answer by a long shot anyway.. you only have to look at how many american universitys get into the top 10/100 in the world to demonstrate that.

AngelofFire

Personally im in favour changing the tax system so that there is lower tax for PAYE workers and higher taxation for those earning in excess of 125,000 per year whilst at the same time raising more revenue. Therefore the only people who would be affected by tax increases are those who can well afford it.

In US universitys, there a few people from lower income socio economic backgrounds, courses are designed to suit the needs of big businesses and academic freedom is restricted. Its like going through a conveyor belt, their only function is to make sure that the finished products ie the graduates are able to serve the needs of the company that owns the university or faculty. There is little room for critical thinking, and no value is placed on education as a public good.

Moriarty

That's why US universitys across the country lead the world in attracting science graduates for general research, and why the top 2 universitys on the planet are both in the states, yeah?

There's much more to their university system than simply producing worker drones.

AngelofFire

They`re only good if you can afford to pay 30,000 per year to go to harvard.

Moriarty

Yup, but that's the cost they pay for unparalleled education. If we want something similar, those tens of thousands per year per student are going to have to come from somewhere, and most of it won't be from the exchequer.

AngelofFire

I`d rather not subscribe to the american system, with its apartheid in education, waste of human potential and inequality of opportunity. One`s place in university should be determined by their academic skills not by how much daddy has in the bank, thats why i argue for universal education. Id rather have an advanced well funded education system like the one in scandanavia than have an american one just for the sake of having 2 universities that make it into the top 100.

Moriarty

.. yeah, but how is it going to be paid for? The exchequer isn't the answer, so what is?

AngelofFire

Since free fees were introduced participation in 3rd level had increased, and the amount of people coming from lower socio economic backgournds has doubled according to HEA statistics. We have one of the lowest spending on education as percentage of GNP in the OECD, so clearly more exhcequer funding is needed. Id rather have an inclusive education system that supports social cohesion and mobility than one that breeds a brain drain and a waste of human portential, just for the sake of having two top universities.

Moriarty

So your answer is the exchequer after all? You realise that's like saying we could have peace on earth if everyone just learnt to get along, yeah?

All I can draw from your posts is that you either (1) Don't really care all that much about university education because you're proposing unworkable solutions or (2) you're unhinged enough to believe that the majority of people in this country want a large hike in income tax.

AngelofFire

Look i already stated that tax hikes should only affect those who can well afford it, so therefore it would not affect the majority of people. I just believe that a properly funded education system(which is the key to the future of this country) is better than a system of tax concessions for racehorse owners, and the wealthy in this country.

As one can draw from my previous post yes, based on evidence the exhcequer is the answer. Prove from australia shows that loan systems only serve to cripple the education system.

Sand

The idealising of a university as some sort of intellectual haven or place where people learn to think outside the box is a throwback to a time when universities were by and large the preserve of a privledged elite who didnt have to compete outside of their own class. They werent there to receive an education but to learn how to be the right sort of gentleman or whatever.

Those privledged elites are fading into obscurity, everyone is increasingly finding themselves scrabbling in the dirt to get ahead. Hence these quaint ideas on universities not having to really concern themselves with providing students with a useful degree are sounding less and less realistic. And whilst the "humanities" are interesting in their own right, theyre not as applicable to the jobs out there as say a degree in science or finance. If we were exposed to the true costs of our education, I doubt many would go for an arts course over a course that would grant them a more applicable degree in the end.

And personally Ive not found universities to be humming with a wide variety of views, or home to open exchanges of views. Quite the opposite actually.

AngelofFire

Sand i can see where you`re coming from, but humanities do have relevance to the economy and society as a matter of fact they are grossly undervalued. Many of the HR departments of multinational companies that are based here such as Intel are staffed by people with degrees in disciplines such as psychology, sociology and philosophy, all of which belong to the arts and humanities.

pork99

AngelofFire wrote:

Many of the HR departments of multinational companies that are based here such as Intel are staffed by people with degrees in disciplines such as psychology, sociology and philosophy, all of which belong to the arts and humanities.

And that's a good thing? :rolleyes: (I've a somewhat juandiced view of HR depts)

Surely it's the "hard" sciences which the most valuable contributions to the economy in the long run? I'm not an academic or a person with an advanced education but I can see research in things like artificial intelligence and molecular biology "delivering the goods" for the economy for decades into the future in ways that I can't quite see coming from areas like sociology or philosophy.

That's not to say people shouldn't study those subjects and I agree that academic research shouldn't put under commercial pressures. How expensive can research in the Humanities be anyway? Surely no need for lab expensive equipment and so on?

This debate reminds me of the historic differences in public service culture between Britain and mainland Europe. The British approach was that to be a good manager one had to have a classical education, ie humanities. The Franco-German approach was to train technocrats for the equivalent jobs, an science and engineering education was provided in places like l'Ecole Polytechnique and the Ecole Normale Superieure which produced public administrators.

AngelofFire

I agree, i frimly believe that education in itself is a public good in itself, and its not about grooming people for employment.

DadaKopf

pork99 wrote:

And that's a good thing? :rolleyes: (I've a somewhat juandiced view of HR depts)

Surely it's the "hard" sciences which the most valuable contributions to the economy in the long run? I'm not an academic or a person with an advanced education but I can see research in things like artificial intelligence and molecular biology "delivering the goods" for the economy for decades into the future in ways that I can't quite see coming from areas like sociology or philosophy.

That's not to say people shouldn't study those subjects and I agree that academic research shouldn't put under commercial pressures. How expensive can research in the Humanities be anyway? Surely no need for lab expensive equipment and so on?

Depends on the research discipline. Millions and millions are pumped into economic research in general, academic economic research can be cheap when restricted to desktop research, or expensive if it involves field research and extensive statistical analysis. The same goes for sociology, which continues to inform, for example, marketing research; as a quantitative discipline (at least in Anglo-American traditions), research can be very costly. The same goes for anthropological research, the ideas of which feed into post-modern marketing techniques to name but one "value added" area. The same for politics, international relations and development studies. Studying languages is an industry in itself. It has to be said that these disciplines contribute to money-making, and universities, seperate from direct market interests, are in the perfect position to develop new ideas and critique old ones as the world changes. Market people look to universities for answers to their commercial problems, economic, political, whatever. Philosophy is more tricky, but it's important too.

I find many people's understanding of what is and is not "important" extremely short sighted, especially regarding the humanities.

Without them we may as well be hampsters on a trundle-wheel.

simu

People display a hunger for ideas about and representations of the world around them, of history etc - humanities depts play (or ought to play) an important role in the creation, organisation, dissemination, analysis etc of such things. For the most part, the benefits of this sort of activity can't be measured in monetary terms.